Judges Reject Cell-Phone Tracking

For the third time in recent months, a federal judge has balked at allowing government investigators to track a citizen via cell phone in real time without agents showing probable cause.

Andrew J. Peck, a magistrate judge with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, asked the Justice Department to clarify its arguments after learning that a Long Island magistrate judge initially denied a similar request in August.

All three cell-tracking requests accompanied more traditional requests to capture the dialing information of incoming and outgoing calls. Those orders only require investigators to certify that the information is likely relevant to an ongoing investigation.

A Texas judge and the Long Island judge ultimately rejected the location-tracking requests in harshly worded opinions last month, concluding investigators cannot track cell phones without going through the hoops necessary for getting a traditional search warrant.

Investigators normally need to prove probable cause to a judge if a tracking device reveals information about nonpublic places.

In the Long Island case, the Justice Department asked to record the location of the cell towers nearest the phone using information in a phone's "control channel," which is separate from the voice channel used in a mobile telephone call, which would give only a rough approximation of a user's locations and movement.

The government in the Texas case wanted information regarding the strength, angle and timing of the caller's signal measured at two or more cell sites -- data that investigators could use to pinpoint a person's location using triangulation.

In denying the Justice Department's third request, Peck cited the Long Island judge's initial ruling from August, which was the first publicly noticed challenge to a phone tracking order.

In an Oct. 5 brief (.pdf) to Peck, the Justice Department countered that a combination of laws allows investigators to easily get at the data.

"A cell phone user voluntarily transmits a signal to the cell phone company, and thereby 'assumes the risk' that the cell phone provider will reveal to law enforcement the cell-site information," wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Brown.

Local public defenders submitted a brief (.pdf) in the New York City case in late October and Peck is expected to issue his decision in coming weeks.

However, the Justice Department has yet to appeal either of the earlier decisions to higher courts.

Kevin Bankston, an Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney, thinks the government is not appealing because a definitive ruling from a higher court might prevent investigators from using the same arguments in other surveillance requests.

"Despite not appealing the two decisions against it, the Justice Department is pushing this wholly discredited argument in secret proceedings with other judges," Bankston said. "Looking at these cases in combination with recent news about the overuse of highly invasive national security letters, this paints a portrait of a Justice Department that will, when it comes to surveillance powers, push the law and then go even farther."

The Justice Department did not return a phone call requesting comment.